Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Saifulhaq Ziay, Advocate vs Majid Nizami and others1999 MLD 2503 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-28Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 314 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-03Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah Kiian vs The State1999 MLD 2406 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 213 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
• Said Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 245 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Said Muhammad vs Ramzan And 6 Other1999 CLC 1383 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
• Sahib Khan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1767 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
• Sagh Ir Ahmad vs Mst. Rukhsana Tabassum and 2 others1999 YLR 882 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-07Read full judgment →
• Safdar Shah vs The State1999 MLD 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-19Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali and another vs The State1999 MLD 2306 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-11Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs The State and 2 others1999 MLD 581 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-30Read full judgment →
• Sabtain vs The State1999 MLD 897 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-21Read full judgment →
• Sabir Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 604 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1806 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sabir Ali and 3 others vs Khushi Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others1999 YLR 318 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-23Read full judgment →
• Saadi Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 2535 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-16Read full judgment →
• S.C. Subjally vs A. Hamid Khan and anothers1999 MLD 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-02
  Section 249-A Cr.P.C.premature acquittalstage of trialprosecution evidencecriminal trialdischarge of accusedrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition before the Lahore High Court challenged orders of the trial and revisional courts dismissing the petitioner's application for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a trial court is justified in refusing to decide a Section 249-A application on its merits when the criminal trial has already reached its final stage. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the underlying spirit and essence of Section 249-A Cr.P.C. is to protect an accused from the expense, agony, and ordeal of undergoing a full trial if the charge is groundless or there is no probability of conviction at an early stage. However, where the trial has reached its concluding phase—the prosecution evidence is complete, statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C. are recorded, and the case is set for defence evidence or final arguments—invoking Section 249-A Cr.P.C. is incompatible with its purpose, and the trial court is fully justified in declining to decide the application on merits at such an advanced stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court justified in refusing to decide an application for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on its merits when the trial has already reached its final stage?
  • What is the underlying spirit and purpose of Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding premature acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Iqbal Hussain vs Federal Public Service Commission1999 CLC 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-08Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Tabassam vs Judge, Family Court And 2 Other1999 CLC 878 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-11
  restitution of conjugal rightsmaintenance allowanceprompt dowerHaq Mehrfamily lawwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three consolidated writ petitions arising from marital litigation between Mst. Rukhsana Tabassum and her husband Saghir Ahmad involving suits for restitution of conjugal rights, maintenance allowance, and dower. The core legal questions addressed relate to whether a wife is entitled to maintenance and to live apart when prompt dower remains unpaid, and whether a decree for restitution of conjugal rights can be granted unconditionally when dower is outstanding. The Lahore High Court held that a wife has an independent right to demand prompt dower and, upon non-payment, is legally entitled to live apart from her husband and claim maintenance, making a decree for restitution of conjugal rights conditional upon the payment of prompt dower. The Court established that non-payment of prompt dower constitutes a valid and complete defence to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and that a wife living apart for this reason remains entitled to maintenance. Consequently, the husband's petition challenging the maintenance award was dismissed, the wife's petition for enhancement of maintenance was dismissed, and her petition setting aside the unconditional decree for restitution of conjugal rights was accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a wife is entitled to claim maintenance when living apart from her husband due to the non-payment of prompt dower?
  • Can a decree for restitution of conjugal rights be granted unconditionally when the husband has not paid the prompt dower demanded by the wife?
  • Does the filing of a suit for the recovery of dower constitute a valid legal demand for prompt dower?
  • Is a decree for restitution of conjugal rights an absolute decree that can be strictly enforced regardless of outstanding dower obligations?
  Read full judgment →
• Rozdar Khan vs Muhammad Haroon and another1999 YLR 406 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-01Read full judgment →
• Roshan Din through Legal Heirs and 2 others vs Suleman1999 YLR 1979 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-10Read full judgment →
• Roman Catholic Church vs Government of Punjab And Other1999 CLC 1389 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-03Read full judgment →
• Riazul Haque Sheikh vs Zulfiqar Hussain And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 99 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-20Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 473 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ul Haque Sheikh vs Zulfiqar, Hussain and 3 others1999 YLR 2040 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-20Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed vs The State1999 MLD 3281 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed vs Additional District Judge, Sargodha and another1999 YLR 336 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18
  pre-emption suitZar-e-Soemdeposit of sale priceprocedural fairnessconstitutional petitiondismissal of suitact of court
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenge the dismissal of pre-emption suits by the Revisional Court, which had set aside the Trial Court's order allowing the plaintiff to deposit the Zar-e-Soem (one-third of the sale price). The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit could be dismissed under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, for failure to deposit the Zar-e-Soem when the Trial Court had failed to pass or communicate the deposit order within the statutory period. The High Court held that the Revisional Court erred in dismissing the suits. The Court ruled that the penal provisions of Section 24(2) cannot be invoked against a plaintiff when the court’s own omission or failure to communicate the deposit order prevented timely compliance. Affirming the principle that an act of the court shall prejudice no one, the Court held that a litigant cannot be penalized for the court's failure to perform its mandatory duty. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared without lawful authority, and the suits were restored for trial in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 if the court failed to order the deposit of Zar-e-Soem within the statutory period?
  • Does the principle that an act of the court shall prejudice no one apply to the mandatory deposit requirements in pre-emption litigation?
  • Is a plaintiff liable for the dismissal of a suit for non-compliance with a deposit order that was never communicated to them by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs D.S.P. and others1999 P Cr. L J 993 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-29Read full judgment →
• Riayasat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 541 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-01Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali And 3 Others vs Ch. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad Sindhhu And 2 Other1999 CLC 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-03
  revision petitionex parte decreepenal provisionsclosure of evidenceremand orderjurisdictional errorcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant revision petition challenged an appellate order that set aside a trial court's decision to close the respondents' evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondents had filed an application under Section 12(2) and Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an ex parte decree. The trial court rejected this application after closing their evidence due to repeated adjournments. The Additional District Judge, on appeal, remanded the case for a fresh decision, allowing the respondents to produce evidence. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly invoked the penal provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and whether the appellate court's remand order was legally sound. The High Court held that penal provisions should only be invoked against contumacious conduct, not mere negligence. It found the trial court's proceedings lacked transparency regarding notice service under Section 24-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court held that revision under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is limited to jurisdictional errors and cannot be used to correct erroneous findings of fact or law, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can the penal provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked against a party for mere negligence in producing evidence?
  • Does the scope of Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allow for the correction of erroneous findings of fact or law that do not affect the court's jurisdiction?
  • Is a revision petition maintainable against an appellate order remanding a case for fresh decision under Order XLIII, Rule 1(u), Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the requirement for invoking penal provisions in civil litigation regarding the conduct of the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Reliance Insurance Company Ltd. and others vs Messrs Chohan1999 YLR 2201 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Muhammad Ikram and 7 others1999 MLD 1622 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-09Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Sindhu and 5 others vs The State and 3 others1999 MLD 1632 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-14Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Khan vs Mst. Mauj Bibi1999 YLR 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-17Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Khan vs (Mst.) Mauj Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 112 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-17Read full judgment →
• Rehmania Textile Mills (Pvt.) Limited through Mian Abdul Rehman, Chief1999 PLD Lahore 216 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-25Read full judgment →
• Rehman vs The State1999 MLD 978 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Redco Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others1999 PLD Lahore 84 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Ravi Spinning Ltd. vs Central Board Of Revenue And OtherPTCL 1999 CL. 710 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-24Read full judgment →
• Ravi Dutt Kapur vs Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Jhang And 91999 CLC 500 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
• Rasul Bakhsh vs A.C., Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 69 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-23Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bakhsh and 4 others vs Assistant Commissioner_ Collector, Alipur and 9 others1999 YLR 320 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-23Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 99 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
• Rao Sakhawat Ali vs Mst. Zaheeran Begum1999 MLD 198 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Jamil Khan vs The StateK.L.R.1999 Criminal Cases 101 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Safdar vs Gulzar Ali alias Papoo and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-25
  bail cancellationvicarious liabilitycommon intentionstatutory ground for bailmurdertentative assessmentperverse order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, in a case registered under sections 324, 302, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether vicarious liability under section 34 can be examined at the bail stage, whether bail can be granted on statutory grounds before the completion of the prescribed period, and the grounds for bail cancellation. The Lahore High Court held that the question of vicarious liability can be tentatively examined at the bail stage and is not barred, that the statutory period for seeking bail in an offence punishable with death is two years, and that an order granting bail based on patently illegal and perverse reasoning warrants cancellation. The court laid down the principle that criminal courts are fully competent to assess constructive or vicarious liability tentatively at the bail stage and set aside the impugned bail order.

  Questions settled

  • Can the question of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be examined by a court at the bail stage?
  • What is the statutory period of detention required for seeking bail in a case punishable with death under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the recognized grounds for the cancellation of bail once granted to an accused?
  • Does a court of concurrent jurisdiction act improperly when entertaining a bail petition in a case already entrusted to another trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Azam vs Ghulam Muhammad1999 YLR 1871 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 531 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-11Read full judgment →
• Rana Azmat Ali vs Punjab Local Council and Election Authority Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 444 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-27Read full judgment →
• Raja Tallat Mahmood vs Assistant Commissioner City, Rawalpindi1999 MLD 863 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-21Read full judgment →
• Raja Nasir Hussain vs The State1999 YLR 1356 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-13Read full judgment →
• Raja Fazal Khan vs Muhammad Nawaz and others1999 MLD 3099 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
• Raja Aamir Naseem Khan through Attorney vs Collector, Lahore1999 MLD 1008 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-22Read full judgment →
• Rais Ahmad vs Rao Hamid Mukhtar, Additional District and Sessions1999 YLR 485 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
• Rais Ahmad vs Rao Hamid Mukhtar, Additional District and SessionsK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 125 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rahim Jan vs Syed Ikram Gardezi1999 MLD 511 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
• Rahim Jan vs Syed Ikram Gardazi1999 MLD 3216 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
• Raheel Sarwar Pall vs Province of Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Labour & Services Cases 37 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-25Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Khan And Other vs Abdus Sattar Khan Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 291 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-14Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 924 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-11
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausestatutory authorityillegal search and seizureProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) OrderControl of Narcotic Substances Actpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the recovery of a large quantity of liquor. The core legal questions were whether the alleged offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the police officer who conducted the search and arrest possessed the requisite legal authority under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Court held that the offence under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, does not fall within the prohibitory clause, making bail the rule rather than the exception. Furthermore, the Court determined that the arresting officer lacked the statutory competence to conduct the search and arrest under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that where a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act, failure to comply renders the action unlawful, and bail should be granted for non-prohibitory offences.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is an arrest and search conducted by a police officer lacking statutory jurisdiction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, lawful?
  • Can a police officer who is not the Station House Officer investigate a case without specific authorization from the Superintendent of Police?
  Read full judgment →
• Rabnawaz vs D.C.1999 MLD 3427 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-15Read full judgment →
• Rabnawaz Khan through Legal Heirs vs Ghulam Muhammad through Legal Heirs1999 CLC 1185 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz, S.H.O. vs The State and `another1999 YLR 870 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-25Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz Khan vs Assistant Commissioner, Khanpur/Returning1999 YLR 390 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz Awan, Advocate Bhakhar and 28 others vs District1999 MLD 2596 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz & Company through Managing Director vs Managing1999 YLR 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-15Read full judgment →
• R.A.C. Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Central Board Of Revenue, Etc.PTCL 1999 CL. 718 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• R.A.C. Associates (Pvt.) Limited through Riaz Ahmad Chowhan, Director vs Central Board of Revenue through Chairman, Islamabad and another1999 PTD 704 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• R.A.C. Associates (Pvt.) Limited through Riaz Ahmad Chohan, Director1999 P.C.T.L.R. 26 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• R Aza Muhammad Khan vs District Council, Muzaffargarh through Administrator and others1999 YLR 432 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-25Read full judgment →
• Qutabuddin vs The State1999 YLR 1395 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-22Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain vs Mughal Khan And Other1999 CLC 319 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-27Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain And Another vs Mughal KhanK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 474 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-27Read full judgment →
• Qurban and Surraya (Wakf) vs District Magistrate, Lahore And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 392 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Shahab-Ud-Din vs Muhammad QasimK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 199 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Javed vs S.S.P., Gujranwala and others1999 P Cr. L J 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Qayyum Khan and 19 others vs Zumarad Khan and another1999 YLR 340 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-23Read full judgment →
• Qayoum Nawaz Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 315 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Qamar Din vs Mushtaq Ahmad And Other1999 CLC 1511 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-08Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Nadeem vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 554 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Ali vs The State and anothers1999 PLD Lahore 473 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-12Read full judgment →
• Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. through Zonal Chief, Multan vs Muhammad Ismail and others1999 YLR 744 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-26Read full judgment →
• Punjab Employees' Social Security Institution vs Fauji Textile Mills1999 PLC 281 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-01Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab, through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore vs (M_S.) M.A. Sheikh and Company, 431-H, Samanabad, LahoreK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 589 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 584 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Imran KhanK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 540 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-08Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Throughsecretary, Revenue, Board Of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And 2 Others vs Messrs Marhaba Dawakhana Regd., Lahore And Another1999 CLC 450 · Lahore High Court
  stamp dutyvaluation tablecollector ratessale of landspecific performancerecovery of moneylimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal arose from a judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Lahore, which decreed a suit for recovery of additional stamp duty and additional Corporation fee paid under protest by the respondent for the registration of a sale-deed. The core legal question was whether the Sub-Registrar could lawfully demand additional stamp duty and Corporation fee based on a Collector's valuation table that was not published in the official Gazette pursuant to section 27-A of the Stamp Act, and whether such amounts paid under coercion could be recovered through a civil suit. The Lahore High Court held that valuation tables and rates fixed by the Collector have no legal effect in the absence of an official gazette notification, and the Sub-Registrar is bound to register documents on the ad valorem stamp duty stated in the transaction or court decree. The Court affirmed that monies illegally exacted without lawful authority are recoverable via a civil suit governed by the residuary limitation period, dismissing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a valuation table or rate fixed by the Collector has any legal effect without notification in the official Gazette under the Stamp Act?
  • Is a Sub-Registrar competent to demand additional stamp duty based on unnotified rates in disregard of a court decree for specific performance?
  • Can a party seek refund or recovery of additional stamp duty and fees illegally exacted through a civil suit?
  • Which article of the Limitation Act applies to a suit for the recovery of money wrongfully collected as stamp duty and fees?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Irriation and Power Department and anothers vs Amjad and Associates1999 MLD 2829 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-30Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore vs Messrs M.A. Sheikh & Company and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 182 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Secretary To Government Of The Punjab1999 CLC 946 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-27Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary to Government of Punjab vs (M_S.) Ascon Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. EtcK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 152 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary Revenue, Board of RevenueK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 315 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector,Mianwali vs Muhammad Hassan1999 MLD 1084 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Collector, Gujrat And Another vs Ch.1999 CLC 1070 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-26Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, District Khushab and anothers vs Ahmed Nawaz and 4 others1999 MLD 3347 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab And Others vs Riaz Ali1999 CLC 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-17Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab And Other vs Amir Iftikhar SoofiK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 206 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
• Prof. Doctor Asghar Alla Ud Din And 3 Others vs Lahore Lycium School, Multan Through Principal And 2 Other1999 CLC 66 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-13
  private nuisanceresidential areacommercial conversiontemporary injunctionprima facie casecivil revisionmaster plan
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' application for a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to restrain the respondents from establishing a school in a residential locality. The core legal question was whether opening a school in a residential area constitutes a private nuisance affecting neighbors' right to quiet enjoyment, and whether such a suit is barred under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that the establishment of a school in a residential zone constitutes a private nuisance infringing the personal rights of immediate residents, meaning Section 91 does not bar the suit. The Court established that the petitioners demonstrated a prima facie case based on the master plan indicating a residential area. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the lower courts' orders were set aside, and the respondents were restrained from operating the school pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the opening and establishing of a school in a residential area constitute a private nuisance for the neighbouring residents?
  • Whether a suit by local residents to restrain a private nuisance is barred under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without the consent of the Advocate-General?
  • What constitutes a prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunctions under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a master plan designating an area as residential establish a prima facie case against commercial conversion when no contrary evidence is produced?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Manzoor Hussain Shah vs Sher Muhammad Alias SherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 168 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
• Pir Bukhsh vs Civil Judge/Judge Family Court and 6 others1999 YLR 2138 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-02Read full judgment →